DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on 01/20/2026 as a Request for Continued Examination.
In the filed response, claims 1, 2, and 7 have been amended, where claims 1 and 7 are independent claims. Claim 3 is cancelled with Claims 4-6 being previously canceled, and Claims 8-9 are newly added.
Accordingly, Claims 1-2 and 7-9 have been examined and are pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/20/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 5-8, filed 01/20/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1, 2, 3, and 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. With the filed amendments, the examiner agrees that the art of record (notably Lacaze, Raichelgauz, and Kobayashi) does not reasonably teach and/or suggest all of the disclosed features of the claims given their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI). Therefore, the prior art rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection can be made under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for the reasons given below.
2. Claims 1 and 7 now recite “and being performed without projecting any fiducial marker distinct from the projection pattern” (emphasis added), however, it is not clear where any such distinction can be found in the specification. Please see MPEP 2173.05(i) regarding negative limitations, where “any negative limitation or exclusionary proviso must have basis in the original disclosure. If alternative elements are positively recited in the specification, they may be explicitly excluded in the claims.” Although the specification provides sufficient description of a projection pattern, there is no positive recitation for excluding the use of a fiducial marker that is distinct from said projection pattern. “The mere absence of a positive recitation is not basis for an exclusion” (MPEP 2173.05(i)). It is recognized that “While silence will not generally suffice to support a negative claim limitation, there may be circumstances in which it can be established that a skilled artisan would understand a negative limitation to necessarily be present in a disclosure.” However after careful consideration, the examiner respectfully submits that given the recited projection pattern in the road surface rendering function of claims 1 and 7, it would not be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art to recognize the presence of this exclusion in the disclosure, since a fiducial marker, such as the one presented in fig. 3 (e.g. ¶0037) of Kobayashi, can be reasonably construed as a “projection pattern that is one of predefined images” given its BRI. For e.g., a marker composed of three circles arranged at apexes of a triangle or a marker composed of a combination of two lateral line segments is essentially a “projection pattern that is one of predefined images” of an arrangement of different shapes. Thus from the disclosure alone, it would not have been entirely apparent to conclude that the projection pattern, as claimed, means excluding any fiducial marker. For these reasons which are discussed below, the examiner respectfully submits that claims 1 and 7 can be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
3. The Examiner is available to discuss the matters of this office action to help move the Instant Application forward. This is the only issue remaining and once addressed, the application will be in condition for allowance. Please refer to the conclusion to this office action regarding scheduling interviews.
4. Accordingly, Claims 1-2 and 7-9 have been examined and are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1; claim 1 recites the limitation “determine, based on the captured images, whether a first road surface area ahead of the vehicle rises relative to a second road surface area on which the vehicle is currently traveling, the determining including detecting, in successive captured images, that a position of the projection pattern itself shifts toward a lower portion of a field of view by at least a threshold, and being performed without projecting any fiducial marker distinct from the projection pattern” (emphasis added); however, the limitation “without projecting any fiducial marker distinct from the projection pattern” does not appear to be discussed nor suggested anywhere in the specification. Although the Applicants point to various paragraphs for providing support (e.g. pgs. 6-7 of filed remarks), the examiner respectfully submits that the specification is silent with regards to not using a fiducial marker that is distinct from the projection pattern for performing the limitation “the determining including detecting, in successive captured images, that a position of the projection pattern itself shifts toward a lower portion of a field of view by at least a threshold”. The Examiner therefore respectfully requests the Applicant to point out where in the specification support can be found for the aforementioned newly added limitations. If no such support can be identified, Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Regarding claim 7; claim 7 recites similar limitations as claim 1 above. For the same reasons presented, claim 7 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Regarding claims 2, 8, and 9; claims 2, 8, and 9 all depend on claim 1 above, and therefore include all of its features. As such, Clams 2, 8, and 9 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Allowable Subject Matter
6. In light of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) above, Claims 1-2 and 7-9 are conditionally allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the art of record (notably Lacaze, Raichelgauz, and Kobayashi) does not reasonably teach and/or suggest, either alone or in combination, all of the disclosed features of the claims given their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI). In particular, they fail to reasonably address “stop projecting the projection pattern by the projection member, based only on determining that the first road surface area rises relative to the second road surface area- projection of the projection pattern; and resume, without requiring driver input and upon determining that the vehicle has passed through the first road surface area determined as rising, projection of the projection pattern onto the road surface ahead of the vehicle.” Although both Lacaze and Raichelgauz were previously found to “suppress” the projection pattern (e.g. 0014, 0031, and figs. 3-4 and 7 of Lacaze, and fig. 7 of Raichelgauz) given the BRI of “suppress” (please see last office action dated 10/21/2025), they do not “stop projecting the projection pattern by the projection member” as now required. Thus, when considering the claims as a whole, the art of record is overcome. Please note that claims 1-2 and 7-9 will be in condition for allowance once the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) has been addressed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see PTO 892 for additional references.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD A HANSELL JR. whose telephone number is (571)270-0615. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 10 am- 7 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jamie Atala can be reached at 571-272-7384. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RICHARD A HANSELL JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486